To clarify my last post, my annoyance at vidboi does NOT stem from the fact that he is advocating using military tactics. I am annoyed that he rejects out of hand any other references JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT ACTUAL COMBAT DOCUMENTS.

I didn't reject it out of hand, I read it and thought it pretty poor. "Don't use high RoF weapons" is exactly the opposite of what any player would advise, and having a specialised reloader (with no support weapons...) rather than an extra rifleman is also a pretty poor trade-off. If you need to reload magazines you shouldn't be doing it in battle. An extra rifleman would end the engagement sooner and then leave time for reloading when not in an engagement whilst still maintaining the combat readiness of the patrol.

My point however is that it's comparing an expert-written, peer-reviewed and tested combat manual to something that's been written for fun by an individual. There's no comparison.

Quote

Some military tactics and techniques lend well towards playing HvZ. However, military tactics are not designed with the game in mind, and one should be judicious in one's application of said techniques.

I don't think anyone's said that in the entire thread. What we've been saying is "yes, it doesn't apply directly to HvZ, but some of the concepts and directives could be used effectively in certain situations in HvZ, so why don't we try this out." The US military philosophy isn't necessarily the only thing that applies here.

Quote

1) Applying military tactics to HvZ is tricky, and takes a lot of thought and practice to implement well in the game. Put your trust less in field manuals and more in field tested techniques. Bottom line: hook up with veterans before, during, and after the game, and eventually YOU will become the veteran teaching the next generation.

I'm pretty certain the majority of forum users are veterans. We know how to play, we're discussing how we can look at other sources (in this case the rifleman's primer) to improve our playstyle. I don't think anyone would disagree that protecting a large group of humans is one of the most difficult tasks you can do in HvZ. We can all survive perfectly well on our own, but large groups pose a different problem. The army manual deals with managing fairly large groups effectively, so there's likely something we can learn from it.

Quote

2) Be open minded enough to accept ideas when they are offered to you. It doesn't mean you have to accept them, but please have the courtesy to consider them before you reject them.

We have considered all the ideas and made our contributions to the discussion. No one's come in and said that everyone should play like a rifleman patrol, we're just discussing how these tactics could be applied to HvZ if you so wish. I'm certain that trying these out would require a well organised group of humans, but there are many of them about.

Quote

3) I personally get really annoyed at teams who go full gung-ho mil-sim for HvZ. As a player and a moderator, I've seen it cause a lot of DBAD issues, so it's a particularly sore subject for me. Having yet another player determined to make this his or her "military experience" while rejecting out of hand any suggestions to the contrary frankly set me the f*** off.

Then don't tar everyone with the same brush. There are plenty more mil-sim teams that play perfectly fine with the rules and don't see themselves as superior to anyone else. They just have fun acting like they're real soldiers in a real situation, heck, some of them are real soldiers and are just doing what they've been taught. Any player can make a dbad move, so I wouldn't say it's wise to single out one group of players. The worst dbad-ers I've found are people who don't take the game at all seriously, and proceed to ignore moderators and make up their own missions, completely ruining the flow of the game for everyone else.

My point however is that it's comparing an expert-written, peer-reviewed and tested combat manual to something that's been written for fun by an individual. There's no comparison.

I don't think anyone's said that in the entire thread. What we've been saying is "yes, it doesn't apply directly to HvZ, but some of the concepts and directives could be used effectively in certain situations in HvZ, so why don't we try this out." The US military philosophy isn't necessarily the only think that applies here.

You are right about the fact that this book was written for soldiers who is fighting an enemy that could shoot back, but a lot of general information can be found useful for hvz. For instance, squads of humans who want to better organize themselves can use some of the formations that are found in the squad formation section. Just for you all to know, this book was made for ROTC personnal and such in mind so I want to say don't take what's written in this book literally and apply it to hvz; only the thoughts and concepts behind the general data.

I did several posts ago. The reason why I posted such a manuel is to provide everyone an interesting, in my opinion, source for general tactics and philosophy that could have some relevance to hvz; I and nobody on this thread ever said that military tactics should be followed word for word. Also, I'm not trying to tell anyone how to play their game; I'm simply providing a reliable source of proven tactics that anyone could look through and say, "That sounds interesting, maybe I'll try that next semester."

LOL, I wasn't referring to your earlier comment Akito237. I was just referring to my intentions for posting this manuel in general, and vidboi said no one else mentioned what I just said before so I was reinstating my earlier point.

LOL, I wasn't referring to your earlier comment Akito237. I was just referring to my intentions for posting this manuel in general, and vidboi said no one else mentioned what I just said before so I was reinstating my earlier point.

I was meaning that no-ones proposing that it would be good to play HvZ exactly like a US army platoon. What I meant was that everyone's agreed that not everything is relevant, but some of it is useful.

Sorry Spartan, poor post timing. My *facepalm* was not directed at your post, but rather vidboi's. There is so much about his previous post that shows that he still isn't thinking about the posts he reads that by the end, I was literally facepalming irl.

Spartan, good luck with your forays into FM 3-21.8. There is some good stuff there if you take it with a grain of salt, and I think there is a lot more military philosophy out there that can help you in future games. Above all, remember that your brain is your primary weapon in this game; keep it well maintained.

Vidboi, there is nothing I can say that a) will be civil, and b) you won't twist into "Nuh uh, I'm right and you're wrong", so let me close by expressing a hope that your preferred mode of play does not interfere with the enjoyment of other players, human and zombie.

That is all. Peace out, guys.

Logged

Member of the 1/44th Light Recon Force, "Wolfpack"Codename GhostPrimary: Alpha Trooper/PraxisSecondary: Socks"If the dogs are barking at your heels, you know you're leading the pack."

Sorry Spartan, poor post timing. My *facepalm* was not directed at your post, but rather vidboi's. There is so much about his previous post that shows that he still isn't thinking about the posts he reads that by the end, I was literally facepalming irl.

Vidboi, there is nothing I can say that a) will be civil, and b) you won't twist into "Nuh uh, I'm right and you're wrong"...

I fail to see what vidboi is missing. He has acknowledged everything you have said up until now, aside from disagreeing about FM 999.3. You made assumptions about his reasoning (that he rejected it purely for being "not a REAL combat manual"), he clarified that he did not in fact do so, and now here you are still flaming away.

What exactly is the problem?

Is it that vidboi didn't agree with your biased and judgmental assertion that "milsim is BAD!" and militarized humans are "missing the point"?

He has every right to call that out as unfair, because it is. Don't generalize groups of players as being detrimental simply in the course of existing and being what they are (militaristic humans). That is wrong. Attitude like that has the potential to actually be a detriment to games, whereas players using one tactical approach or the other means absolutely zilch. Get that through your head already and stop namecalling whole demographics of HVZ players which I happen to be a part of.

Furthermore I have to agree with the doubts over FM 999.3. I have had a copy of this document for quite a while. Dealing with Romero type "reanimated" zombies and dealing with 28DL and HVZ type "infected" zombies are apples and oranges. Fictional status aside, FM 999-3 is just as irrelevant if not more than FM 3-21.8 - Romero zombies are just as far from HVZ zombies as are enemy combatants who shoot back, and there are parts of each that should never be applied to HVZ.